Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

proftobe's page

798 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 798 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1. Best pet in the game
2. complicated and easily misunderstood rules
3. its a 9th level caster pretending to be a 6th level caster getting all the benefits and none of the drawback
4. its "back up" ability of SM SLA is actually something that easily power an entire class
5 its main archetypes are either nightmarishly complicated or ridiculously over powered
6 the range on see invisible vs buff spells.


Scavion wrote:
proftobe wrote:
make combat caster checks much more difficult then they would be more balanced
Some friends and I have toyed about with this and the general consensus is that having to roll to decide whether you do anything at all is a poor mechanic. Failed the roll? Your turn is over. Yikes.

while I can see what you're saying but I think it should be hardto cast if hit and or grappled. Maybe have spells have a lesser effect or lower saves if you blow the roll


Martials don't need a boost certain martials need a boost. Casters don't need a nerf certain spells/abilities do. Feats and combat needs the revamp. If you fixed the mundane martials with a slight boost while making combat more mobile and gave options other than damage real 20 level teeth without ridiculous investment while at the same time removing the ridiculous spells toning down SoS and make combat caster checks much more difficult then they would be more balanced


Especially a low level one


here is an old example from a FAQ

Does the ring of continuation (Ultimate Equipment, page 168) allow you to cast time stop with a duration of 24 hours?

This item has had some unintended consequences and needs a fix. Change the second sentence of the description to read as follows: "Whenever the wearer of the ring casts a spell with a range of personal and a duration of 10 minutes per level or greater, that spell remains in effect for 24 hours or until the wearer casts another spell with a range of personal (whichever comes first)."

FAQ's are official changes (that's why JJ never gets involved in the non golarion ones) while anything else is an opinion. Example JJ's hatred of Summoner or disallowing higher plus weapons through DR or anything on the old ask Sean thread.


Miryafa wrote:
Blakmane wrote:

I know this is only a theorycrafting thread anyway, but I think you'd probably find even in PFS GMs would apply this FAQ to weird words as well.

<snip>

As SKR used manyshot as a non-spell example in the FAQ thread.

While GMs may decide to use it, FAQ is not RAW, and therefore does not apply to a theory-crafting thread. In addition, SKR is well-known for misinterpreting the rules (as in, he draws a conclusion that is different from what the rules actually say), even the ones that he wrote.

actually FAQ becomes RAW its only when its not done in an FAQ that its just an opinion from one developer.


reyyvin wrote:
EvilPaladin wrote:

I would really like this to work with the Close Weapon Group, because although it would impose a minor feat tax, it would let Brawler[ACG] and Monk characters use Unarmed Strike damage with Brass Knuckles[like many think they should be able to do].

That said, Natural Weapons are only found in the Natural Weapon fighter group, unfortunately.

Thread Necro...

An Unarmed strike counts as both a manufactured and a natural attack

weapon focus (Unarmed Strike)
Feral Combat Training (Unarmed Strike)
Martial Versatility (FCT)

would this allow you to use monk damage (and unarmed effects) with weapons in the "Monk" weapon group... which include Cestus and brass knuckles?

no because FCT only allows you to use it with feats/abilities that have improved unarmed as a preq. Martial versatility isn't one of them. On the bright side the brawler will possess an ability close to what you are asking for we just don't know exactly how it works yet.


dot


Brewer's guide is amazing.https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=CF830C0FA4CEE8DE!207& ithint=file%2c.pdf&app=WordPdf&authkey=!AMjZjzJxXVztFVU


my quick and dirty rogue rules
receives poison use at 1st level
may select a feat in place of a rogue talent. must qualify
Reflex and will both good saves.
2nd level panache pool; treat as ninja ki pool when using Ki to add to movement may move (Ki added movement only) as an immediate action.
sneak attack from stealth and anytime they have cover or concealment. SA unaffected by cover or concealment.
Replace all rogue talents that allow 2 skill rolls with the following talent
Peerless skill. Rogue may select (int modifier{at time selected} number of skills and roll twice for each. May be selected multiple times. UMD may not be selected.
Finesse rogue talent now grants the dex to damage feat.
May give up Sneak attack for alchemist bomb making ability. If selected may select alchemical discoveries dealing with bombs in place of rogue talents. May select alchemist version of throw anything as a feat.
Can select hide in plain sight as an advanced talent
May select assassin death attack as advanced talent
most archetype abilities are available as talents at an appropriate level.


people its officially time to let this one go or to move it to another thread. He has his opinion on wind stance and concealment. It seems that most of us disagree, but without a FAQ you aren't going to convince him he isn't going to convince you. So instead of a thread becoming another in a long list of circular arguments that escalte until thread lock and I would like to know how this rogue poll plays out.

Personally I would like some form of bonus to hit when SA coupled with another good save(I like will) and better rogue talents.


Sohei monk gets all the martial profs. You'll actually get in faster(if that's what you're looking for) as aasimar with your empyreal sorcerer at 3rd level. You get to flurry in light brawling enchanted armor so you'll do more damage hand to hand and have a better AC.


Scavion wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
The fighter could take a Bane weapon and gain a +2 to hit and +2d6 damage which is very close to mimicking the Favoured Enemy class feature.

Which would be interesting if the Ranger didn't have the ability to do the same thing, the exact same way, for the same price.

or even cheaper if he takes craft arms and armor


Thanks I have to say I'm glad just you talking about this project got me to break out my Neo exodus PDF. I cant wait for the new material.


As an alternative use mythic get to rank 3 and pick the ability that lets you grant spells like a god as well as the one that grants immortality. Join one of the 9 infernal courts and work from there. Depending on the character in a few millennium he'd convince his patron for a promotion into infernal nobility then several millenia later he might get the nod as long as he managed to expand his power while adding to his patrons power keeping his many rivals at bay while screwing over his slight betters AND not seeming like to big a threat to his immediate superiors.


Sohei monk what he was doing could certainly be described as flurry plus no matter how cool he is he loses to the mental stat dump two handed fighter. Certainly sounds monkish to me. Maybe with a few rogue or alchemist levels to represent his skills.


I'm in the same boat as Austin I posted mine on page 40, but didn't get the e-mail. If someone could please forward me a copy.

misanthrope17@hotmail.com


playing a "pure" caster druid is really, really tricky especially if you're not that familiar with the class. Don't get me wrong it can be done, but IMO not what you want to start out with as a druid.


Marthkus wrote:

I want my level 20 fighter to be able to jump higher.

Can we make that priority 1?

I want all this massive strength and martial ability to translate across to other mechanics.

without any magic items SLA or racial magic just high att and skill before anyone says just (insert the above) to gain access to the jump spell.


first a caveat. Its your game do what you and your group finds fun.

Ok that out of the way technically speaking if you're using RAW WBL nobody gets a discount. I think its int he campaign book. it spells out that only the person who takes the feat should get the discount and then they should only be 25% over WBL because of those feats. Everyone else should get less treasure if your NPC starts crafting at a discount(keeping them at WBL) because its ridiculously easy in any campaign without a hard time limit(Never played shattered star so I don;t know,but Paizo AP's fall apart against anything outside of the baseline ideas in the game. Especially extra treasure.) for the crafting feat to blow the game wide open. Secondly a lot of GM's hate cohorts who can in this scenario just keep taking other crafting feats so you get all of the benefits of all those feats for just one feat. Its seen as a cheesy power gamer move.

Once again its your game and you seem to be coming at this from an honest perspective so take my warnings with a grain of salt.


Kwauss wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:

+2 Str Item.

Or you can always just, you know, drop non-essential equipment during a fight.

As a GM, I Love unattended items and AoE spells/effects. Including spell books on horses...

It's also great when almost all of a players items are in one other magic item that can be destroyed with a targeted damage spell that can do 7-12 points of damage (after a successful item save, since it's leather) or sunder. If they can't steal the item, bad guys love the flexibility to strip an opponent of all their other magic items (and often spellbook).

unless they literally pull something from the pouch that cant fit inside that would require several rounds of detect magic to identify. I wonder what the Pc was doing during this time. Remember if YOU metagame don't be mad when players don't need knowledge checks for weaknesses or other metagame considerations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nidal the land of eternal light ruled by the insane priests of Sheylin devoted to endless pursuit of "beautiful art" that slowly drives you insane. While her brother attempts to bring the balm of night back to the land


http://www.amazon.com/Rokugan-Legend-Five-Rings-Adventures/dp/1887953388/re f=cm_cr_pr_product_top


AEG(the people who make L%R) also did a D20 conversion book called Rokugan that I thought was better than the official Oriental adventures version.


Larkos wrote:

The list of summons at the end doesn't have one for Gorum. Does he not get one?

I was also curious what the obediences actually are. You mention a few but I can't afford the book right now and would really like to know.

The obediences are all up on Archives of Nethys under the gods description.


Aelryinth wrote:

Without getting into changing combat rules, I recommend you make the following simple changes to a fighter to shore up his defenses:

1) House rule that you only get armor and weapon profs at level 1. If you want to multiclass, you don't get these after 1st.
This makes armor and weapon profs valuable, because now you must spend feats to get them if you don't start with them.

at level 1, let him remove heavy armor and tower shield prof for increase to 4 skill points/level.
AND let him remove medium armor/shields for +Int as a dodge bonus to AC (not to exceed fighter level). This lets any fighter become an instant swashbuckler.
Let him determine his strong save.
Let him pick two class skills as part of his fighter training.

Add the Save Feats to the Combat feat list.
If the fighter takes Iron Will, let him also add his Bravery bonus to all Will Saves.
If he takes Lightning Reflexes, ditto his Armor Training Bonus to Reflex saves.
Great Fortitude, his weapon training bonus.

Let him add a class skill and gain an extra skill point with every point of his Bravery bonus. He will eventually end up with more skill points then a ranger.

IF he takes weapon focus at level 1, let him do +1 Weapon Training damage with the weapon, so he actually gets a combat bonus at level 1.

Weapon Spec doubles his Weapon Training bonuses with the weapon. Done. No more Greater weapon focus/spec. Just let it scale.

Turn Armor Training into a +1 Dodge bonus and +1 Dr x/- that stacks with Adamantine Armor and feats, in addition to armor movement and AP reduction. Surprise, it culminates nicely with the level 19 capstone.
Dwarves, who don't need it, should get a +5 movement bonus instead of Armor Mastery.

Turn the level 20 capstone from increasing crit multiplier, which is really an improved critical/weapon spec tree thing, to granting a unique thing, a 5th iterative, and change the iteratives to go off at -3 instead of -5.

LEt Vital Strike auto-scale without the Fighter needing to spend feats. Let his weapon...

if its not to much trouble I'd like to see a copy.


MrRetsej wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
If the release class is clarified to count as a fighter for feats, you better believe I'm making a Human Warpriest and snagging Martial Versatility with a weapon that's in several groups.
So, are you saying that with that I could pick Whip as my Sacred Weapon, then later with Martial Versatility: be proficient with all Exotic Weapons?
Unless Warpriests are allowed to take Fighter-only feats, you couldn't take Martial Versatility since Warpriests are forbidden from taking Fighter and Cleric levels and being a 4th Level Fighter is a prereq for Martial Versatility.

They're dropping that limitation in the book. it along with a few other goodies were spoiled a few days ago.


I'd like to come at this from a slightly different angle. Why would you need to switch gods. While ole Rags is the god of revenge there is also a STRONG redemption part to the divinity considering he was born a devil(Dis's son if I remember correctly) who eventually managed to be redeemed enough to become an angel, eventually become the general of heaven and I'm pretty sure used to work for the goddess of redemption as her herald before he got the promotion to full on divine being(not sure about the last part I know he was somebody's like that's herald might have iomadae instead of sarerae.) So there's no real reason to switch gods just change your focus from one aspect to another.


personally I'd suggest E6 or E8 with mythic being sprinkled in at the upper levels(if you wanted to go that route). That way you only really need to ban crafting(and summoners like all right thinking gamers) to get the feel of low magic.


I've had the opposite experience. I've played through second darkness, Rise(anniversary ed), and am half way through wrath of the righteous and unless the GM(I GMed 1/2 of second) significantly boosts the combats they've been cake walks with the only character deaths coming from bad dice rolls or from when the GM over juiced a fight. But we do use 25 point buy because we hate tanking stats(we do put a stop to any cheesy over focused stat allocation though)


I'm pretty sure in the dip area that crypt breaker and viv. Both stack on the alchemist making it a much better dip


I'd like a final copy as well thanks guys I missed the deadline: misanthrope17@hotmail.com


I worked gaming distribution in the late nineties. Amazon was just really getting into game books and sent us a small order and a NDA that could have choked a bear. When we refused to sign they continued to send us orders even though I contacted them on multiple occasions to explain we had no interest in doing business if they wanted us to sign the NDA and then spent a 30 minute conversation attempting to explain exactly how out of print some of the things they were ordering. Didn't stop them from sending us an order every week for about 3 months. I have watched their RPG preorders in the time since. It hasn't gotten any better. Amazon has absolutely no idea about anything that is happening in the RPG world.


Have you thought about E6 or E8? I think that would fix most of your issues with the magic item.


Renegadeshepherd wrote:
proftobe wrote:

There's a great guide to the dragon disciple which basically answers a lot of your questions.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cmswe4jHDb1Vcm3oQME3mxUelX_WzKbQ8r9_1mw QS6M/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1

It's a good guide but it can't answer one basic question. One Level 9 spells better than a much higher strength and well rounded LV 8 caster?

unfortunately that is down to campaign specifics and personal preference.


I can answer the why as campaign book specific feats they aren't subject to the "open content" rules. Basically the same reason you'll never see a mind flayer or githyanki in PF.


There's a great guide to the dragon disciple which basically answers a lot of your questions.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cmswe4jHDb1Vcm3oQME3mxUelX_WzKbQ8r9_1mw QS6M/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1


Oncoming_Storm wrote:
EvilPaladin wrote:
Fun Anecdote:I remember playing with one rogue who, in one round, was doing more damage to anything he was close to than even the most optimized anything except for maybe a Vivisectionist or smiting paladin could come close to. He was dropping Crippling Strike on top of buckets of d6's and at the same time was hiding in shadows to well to be seen [he was 13, and dropped a few levels in shadow dancer]. We convinced the townsfolk that the shadows he hid in were really the Vashta Nerada eating people in the night. Hehe, we did have a semi-flexible GM and he kinda was about 10x as optimized as the Tarrasque itself, but still it was hilarious how the town council reacted when we announced that "The Shadows are Eating your People!". Of course, when the build failed a will save for dominate after rolling a 19 on the die, one-rounded the paladin, and then subsequently was slaughtered by the confused barbarian, we kinda burned the character sheet and buried the ashes, so I can't exactly post the build. Still, it was a fun time.
Oh, we're telling fish stories now? Cause I swear we once had a melee Wizard who used to never cast spells, he slaughtered everything with two weapon fighting. I don't have the build, of course, because he was so powerful my GM destroyed the character sheet.

true story.


DrDeth wrote:
MattR1986 wrote:
The more I read these threads the closer I get to barring Summoner all together. My current "fix" is no Summoner archetypes and the Summoners summon ability is = to Cha not 3+Cha

Yes, and we have more or less done this. First of all, every single eidolon build I have seen was mathematically or otherwise wrong, and every single time the error was in favor of more power. We have had dozens and dozens of DM's post here with some complaint about a OP summoner, and every time they have the build, it's wrong.

So, the DM has to study the rules very very carefully and go over every build with a calculator. Lots of work.

Next, look at the FAQ for the synthesist- more by far than any other archetype.

The actual best way to reign in the actual class is to have the Player tell the DM what his eidolon concept is, but the DM builds it. This was actually close to what JJ thought the class would be- you'd pick Demon or outre outsider or an gelic and 4 legs or whatever, then there'd be a chart what you got, with few customizable buialmost
Little hard to do that with the Synthesist.

I literally have never agreed with dr deth(2 years on the boards personally) but I completely agree with him on this. Its all fussy rules grey areas and easily messed up FAQ posts. If the character isn't down with that level of GM control then you have to ban the class. IMO banning the summoner is a lot easier but YMMV.


wizard illusion specialist


Tiefling 1 level sor or illusiknist and 3 in ninja going into arcane trickster. Loki can definately backstab


Marthkus wrote:
proftobe wrote:
The scenario you're missing is the boss ignores the monk because of low damage and kills someone else instead. While the fighters defences aren't great he CANT be ignored because of damage. Most monks(with great defended) can safely be ignored because when it takes you 3-6 rounds to finish some off the odds of them taking out another party member increases. Defensively monks can survive a TPK like nobodies business but in a lot of those scenarios with a fighter there wouldn't have been a TPK.
I'm sure this comment comes after reading 18 pages of discussion...

actually it does although I often question whether you do.


The scenario you're missing is the boss ignores the monk because of low damage and kills someone else instead. While the fighters defences aren't great he CANT be ignored because of damage. Most monks(with great defended) can safely be ignored because when it takes you 3-6 rounds to finish some off the odds of them taking out another party member increases. Defensively monks can survive a TPK like nobodies business but in a lot of those scenarios with a fighter there wouldn't have been a TPK.


Its not based on ignorance but the fact that both superman and the hulks reaction ti lava might be to go "hey" and that's the kind of people 15th level characters are mathematically based on. It reminds me if watching desolation of smaug vs Thor 2. The hobbit movies are what people think of when they imagine what their game looks like but Thor 2 intro better models mid to high level play. People teleporting in and out rays firing everywhere while minions bring down unstoppable monsters leaving the main villains to the Pc.


Simon Legrande wrote:
proftobe wrote:

That's the problem you're way to caught up in the idea that you just can't build these other classes to fulfill the exact same niche. Why isn't the bard built for scouting if that's the character? Why isn't the alchemist built for castle robbing if that's the character?

Why isn't the ranger built to smuggle if that's what you want etc etc. The issue that you seem to be missing is that we want a better rogue because we like the fluff, but the mechanics suffer and even if it didn't go far enough similar threads did manage to get a horrible debuff reversed and a slight buff(it wasn't enough but it did happen) to the monk so why wouldn't we keep trying to get more out of the class.

No, I am not the one trying to make that point. I'm saying that if all of these other classes are objectively better at doing X than the rogue why don't people just play those other classes and stop with the "rogues suck" nonsense. A couple others then decided that they like rogues, they just want them to "not suck."

I haven't played a pure rogue in quite a while, but I see nothing wrong with the rogue class as it is. That being said, I haven't played a pure anything because I like messing around with class combinations. I haven't made a single-classed 1-20 level character since the invention of Pathfinder. Although I am working on building a pure rogue now just to have some fun with it again.

at the risk of repeating myself we want a better rogue because we like the fluff, but the mechanics suffer and even if it didn't go far enough similar threads did manage to get a horrible debuff reversed and a slight buff(it wasn't enough but it did happen) to the monk so why wouldn't we keep trying to get more out of the class. thats why


Simon Legrande wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

I have to ask... do you come from a pre-3.0 D&D background? Because if that's the case, you might be confusing what a Rogue should be with what a Thief was.

A rogue should be a qualified and competent adventurer, able to stand abreast with Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers, Druids, Wizards, and Clerics.

He should be very good at what he chooses to pursue, whether that be sniping, backstabbing, swashbuckling, smuggling, scouting, dungeon delving, castle robbing, or anything else you can think of.

He should not be outdone by the Bard, or the Alchemist, or the Wizard, or the Ranger (who might be almost as useful as a Rogue inside the Ranger's Favored Terrain.)

Is a rogue built for scouting better than a bard that isn't?

Is a rogue built for castle robbing better than an alchemist that isn't?
Is a rogue built for smuggling better than a ranger that isn't?
Is a rogue built for dungeon delving better than a wizard that isn't?

I'm quite sure a fair number of people are so determined that the rogue is absolutely horrible to the point that the class should just be removed that they will answer "no" to all of those questions.

If you're going to refer to a class as a "trap" class, don't play it.

That's the problem you're way to caught up in the idea that you just can't build these other classes to fulfill the exact same niche. Why isn't the bard built for scouting if that's the character? Why isn't the alchemist built for castle robbing if that's the character?

Why isn't the ranger built to smuggle if that's what you want etc etc. The issue that you seem to be missing is that we want a better rogue because we like the fluff, but the mechanics suffer and even if it didn't go far enough similar threads did manage to get a horrible debuff reversed and a slight buff(it wasn't enough but it did happen) to the monk so why wouldn't we keep trying to get more out of the class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
N. Jolly wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Most Bards I run into, swap out Versatile Performance through the Arcane Duellist archetype.
Most (good) Rogue archetypes trade out trapfinding and you still find people clamoring that it's one of the Rogue's main niches.
A ranger and a bard have more skills, combat, and magic than a fighter and a rogue even if the bard is an arcane duelist.

I have discussed this topic at length and have had my fill of rogue vs. everyone else in threads like this. I'm not going through that song and dance routine again.

You don't like playing rogues.. I've got a radical idea... don't play them.

I've got an idea if you don't like rogue threads don't post in them or even read them.


N. Jolly wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:

Throw in Superstition, a race with a favored class bonus to improve it, and a Ring of Evasion and you shrug off just about anything.

Including your teams Prayer spell, healing and so forth. Superstition is a trap on a good team.

If you're healing in battle, you're probably not in a good team. Having a character who can make basically every save against any magical effect is far better than most buffs they could receive.

I just...don't understand how anyone could call Supes a trap...like ever.

generally its people who don't like to play barbs and only see them.played poorly. That's not the only reason but its the most prevalant one in my experience.


Rage cycle for the win.


anecdotal evidence is evidence of anecdotes and if they see a problem they need to fix it.

1 to 50 of 798 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.